Why have we, in the US, never amended the Constitution w/o Congress?

[Endus]

State legislatures, if I am not mistaken, are supposed to represent their citizens.

So're members of Congress and the Senate. That's why this is a silly distinction to be making; the chief difference between state governments and federal is that of scope and focus, not representation.

Don't lecture me on American Civics. I'm well aware the call for a Constitutional Convention is a right of the states as opposed to the individuals, but the states are far more likely to listen to their constituents than the federal government

You're trying to say it's apples and oranges, but it's granny smiths and macintoshes. Both federal and state government are representative of their consitituents. It's just as easy to get your Congressmen or women to listen to their constituents, as it is to get the state legislature to listen. Both represent their state's interests. You aren't trying to get "the federal government" to listen, just your congressional representatives. The Amendment needs to be proposed by either 2/3 of the State legislatures, or 2/3 of the members of Congress. Apples and apples. Either way, it's the state's representatives. The main difference is that Congressional seats are done by population, so more populous states have more senators; if you had 2/3 of the smaller states that wanted an Amendment, the national convention would be the way to go, otherwise, it's easier to go through Congress, particularly if you have some of the more populous states pushing the Amendment (as they'd have more Congress representatives to throw behind it).


The issues leading to Congress being deadlocked and getting nothing done are the same issues that will prevent 2/3 of the states' legislatures from agreeing on anything, too.

[Milchshake]

Article V, which has made our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world. The last truly significant constitutional change was the 22nd Amendment, added in 1951, to limit presidents to two terms. The near impossibility of amending the national Constitution not only prevents needed reforms; it also makes discussion seem futile and generates a complacent denial that there is anything to be concerned about.

Then look at state constitutions, most of which are considerably easier to amend. There have been more than 230 state constitutional conventions; each state has had an average of almost three constitutions. (New York, for example, is on its fifth Constitution, adopted in 1938.)

got that from, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance
Sanford Levison

[Laize]

You're trying to say it's apples and oranges, but it's granny smiths and macintoshes. Both federal and state government are representative of their consitituents. It's just as easy to get your Congressmen or women to listen to their constituents, as it is to get the state legislature to listen. Both represent their state's interests. You aren't trying to get "the federal government" to listen, just your congressional representatives. The Amendment needs to be proposed by either 2/3 of the State legislatures, or 2/3 of the members of Congress. Apples and apples. Either way, it's the state's representatives. The main difference is that Congressional seats are done by population, so more populous states have more senators; if you had 2/3 of the smaller states that wanted an Amendment, the national convention would be the way to go, otherwise, it's easier to go through Congress, particularly if you have some of the more populous states pushing the Amendment (as they'd have more Congress representatives to throw behind it).

You seem to be Canadian so you can be forgiven for being unaware of our current Congress' (and the past 5 or so, for that matter) problem with even discussing certain matters... much less voting or approving them.

This problem is far less prevalent at the state level. In fact, quite a bit gets done in state legislatures. Vermont, for example, had passed a law enacting single-payer healthcare not long after Obamacare (A plan many consider superior to Obamacare drafted and passed in less time) while Massachusetts had universal healthcare legislation 6 years prior to that.

In addition, state politicians seem less tied to party lines and more willing to compromise than those at the federal level.

---------- Post added 2013-02-03 at 12:11 AM ----------

Article V, which has made our Constitution among the most difficult to amend of any in the world. The last truly significant constitutional change was the 22nd Amendment, added in 1951, to limit presidents to two terms. The near impossibility of amending the national Constitution not only prevents needed reforms; it also makes discussion seem futile and generates a complacent denial that there is anything to be concerned about.

Then look at state constitutions, most of which are considerably easier to amend. There have been more than 230 state constitutional conventions; each state has had an average of almost three constitutions. (New York, for example, is on its fifth Constitution, adopted in 1938.)

got that from, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance
Sanford Levison

The difficulty of amending the Constitution should not really be seen as a bad thing.

[themaster24]

... I'm well aware "some form of Congress" has to come to an agreement.

State legislatures and state governments in general tend to be quite representative of their citizenry, however. I mean... do you think the Texas government is somehow right-wing with a citizenry that mimics California? Of course not. Texans, generally, approve of the Texan government even though Californians might find some of its aspects repugnant. The reverse is also true.

As mentioned, however, there are issues that cross party lines. Texans and Californians alike can generally agree that there are aspects of our government that need updating.

As a Texan, I found the bolded section to be quite hilarious. Anyway, while I agree with you that there are bipartisan issues, you would still have to convince, a majority I believe, of your states legislature to want to apply to the federal govt., and then bank on the other 2/3 of the states to do the same, at around the same time. In theory this shouldn't be hard. In practice, elected officials don't always think with the best interest of the whole in mind.

[Laize]

As a Texan, I found the bolded section to be quite hilarious. Anyway, while I agree with you that there are bipartisan issues, you would still have to convince, a majority I believe, of your states legislature to want to apply to the federal govt., and then bank on the other 2/3 of the states to do the same, at around the same time. In theory this shouldn't be hard. In practice, elected officials don't always think with the best interest of the whole in mind.

If you find yourself living in the Texan metropolitan areas then I'm sure you lean further left than most Texans... but there's no doubt that Texans, as a group, are some of the most strongly Republican people in the US.

[Svifnymr]

The difficulty of amending the Constitution should not really be seen as a bad thing.

Early 2000's, some Florida lobbyists figured out how easy it was to get an amendment to the state constitution on teh ballot. If it passed with a simple majority, it was put into the constitution. So we got a spat of amendments for stupid things. Finally we even got to vote for an amendment to make it harder for amendments, which also passed easily.

[themaster24]

If you find yourself living in the Texan metropolitan areas then I'm sure you lean further left than most Texans... but there's no doubt that Texans, as a group, are some of the most strongly Republican people in the US.

Trust me I know. My friends dad used to tell me that I, "Look like a god damned arab" when I used to have a goatee. I mostly found it funny because of recent anger that has been focused towards our state govt.

[Kaleredar]

hahaha this exactly. Too many Americans don't seem to care enough. Change is bad, remember?! Unless their house is getting destroyed, they're likely very cool with how things are.

I don't see you leading rallies in the streets.

Complaining that something is wrong is tantamount to sitting around doing nothing. You can't "complain" something into happening (especially when you're complaining about the "inaction" of other people.) People are happy to jump aboard the band wagon... it just needs to exist.

[mistuhbull]

It's a legitimate question. There are things we, in this country, absolutely despise about our Federal government... and these hatreds cross party lines.

I know of no one who supports the warrantless wiretapping of the NDAA. No one who supports the games of "chicken" Congress has been playing with our economy and very few who support Citizens United. Not a one of our 3 branches of government is innocent when it comes to our lives.

We have the power to change it, however. And we can do it without hoping other states change their 90%+ incumbency rate in Congress... and without waiting for the GOP's tactics to be their own downfall.

Article V of our Constitution clearly defines procedure for amending the Constitution... and one of the procedures doesn't involve Congress (Well, it does, but Congressional involvement is compulsory on their part... they don't get to vote on whether to comply) while NONE of the procedures involve the Executive or Judicial branches.

When it becomes a matter of bipartisan concern and the government is unwilling (because it makes their job easier, such as the warrantless wiretapping) or unable (such as how the GOP has been blocking Congress from taking almost any important action) to act... the states have the power to call a Constitutional Convention and amend the Constitution. We COULD use this ability to make our Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures completely immutable and, thus, ending warrantless wiretapping.

But that's just ONE example and not even a very original one.

We could draft an amendment that ends the war on drugs... we could draft one that overturns Citizens United... we could draft one to do anything we (collectively) want... and the federal government would be forced to comply.

So why is it that, in 222 years, we have never called a Convention to propose a bipartisan amendment for the good of the country?

Why do we continually leave things in the hands of Congress? Is this what happens when our Civics courses steadily go down the drain in terms of quality?

Because the infinitesimally small chance of Congress doing something productive is still infinitely more possible than 2/3 of the state legislatures agreeing that something should be done

[Kraenen]

I don't see you leading rallies in the streets.

Complaining that something is wrong is tantamount to sitting around doing nothing. You can't "complain" something into happening (especially when you're complaining about the "inaction" of other people.) People are happy to jump aboard the band wagon... it just needs to exist.

why does this read like white noise?

[Sam the Wiser]

This pretty much boils down that most people don't care. Only a handful of people really push for these things. That why we have all these weird laws.

[theredviola]

Because rich, white, men (corporations) run America on it's current laws and interpertation of said laws and because those laws work well for them -- nothing will change.

MFW someone thinks that politicians, that get anything done, do it un-coerced by lobbyists.

[Sunseeker]

Because making Constitutional Amendments through mob rule is the antithesis of democracy? Tyranny of the Majority has never served to benefit the nation.

[Endus]

You seem to be Canadian so you can be forgiven for being unaware of our current Congress' (and the past 5 or so, for that matter) problem with even discussing certain matters... much less voting or approving them.

There's these amazing things called "news stations" and "newspapers" and even "the Internet". It's really not that hard to follow world events. I'm also aware of things like Greece's economic crisis and the blowup that's starting in Mali, because I actually follow the news and stuff like a normal human being.

The difficulties the congress have been having boil down to partisanship. It's been getting silly since the '90s. I never argued otherwise.

The point, which you're avoiding, is that state legislatures have the exact same problem. While a specific state may be weighted enough to have a majority one way or the other, that's irrelevant; you need 2/3 of the states to agree. And they don't. If they did, Congress would be ticking along just fine, too.

Amending the Constitution cannot be done at the state level. There's two paths to deal with it at the federal level; by 2/3 of Congress, or 2/3 of state legislatures at a national convention. Both involve the collective of all the states, which means the same bipartisanship preventing anything getting done in Congress will prevent anything getting done between enough states to matter.

The difficulty of amending the Constitution should not really be seen as a bad thing.

Really, the Constitution is easy to amend. It's not a hugely complicated process, it just requires a heavy majority. It's more of an "unless there's a DAMN good reason that most everyone agrees with" thing than anything difficult.

And I agree on that; that majority requirement is absolutely a good thing. Fundamental documents like the Constitution shouldn't be jiggered with unless there's a really, really good reason, and a lot of public support.

[oblivionx]

It's a legitimate question. There are things we, in this country, absolutely despise about our Federal government... and these hatreds cross party lines.



We could draft an amendment that ends the war on drugs... we could draft one that overturns Citizens United... we could draft one to do anything we (collectively) want... and the federal government would be forced to comply.

So why is it that, in 222 years, we have never called a Convention to propose a bipartisan amendment for the good of the country?

Why do we continually leave things in the hands of Congress? Is this what happens when our Civics courses steadily go down the drain in terms of quality?

Well it's 2/3 of the states to even hear it, and 3/4 to ratify.

Only the republicans could pull it off, and they are mostly anti-federal.

[Milchshake]

Actually the constitution is about impossible to amend in current circumstances. To say otherwise is to be oblivious to this amazing thing called history, or this other thing called progress.

Only if we had the tyranny of the majority in the US. Instead we have the tyranny of the fading majority, political stagnation and obstruction.

We need to stop treating the Constitution as some religious text. What was truly admirable about the framers was their willingness to critique, indeed junk, the Articles of Confederation. One need not believe that the Constitution of 1787 should be discarded in quite the same way to accept that we are long overdue for a serious discussion about its own role in creating the depressed (and depressing) state of American politics.




And props to Canada who: enacted a Constitution in 1982, abolishing Britain’s last jurisdiction over it. In 1999 it created the whole new territory of Nunavut to give the Inuit more self-determination.

[Skroe]

Because our system works far more than in the various ways it doesn't, and far more than nearly every other government on earth. And because what we'd replace it with wouldnt be much better.

Also much of the "problem" if you want to phrase it like that isn't with Government, its structure or the Constitution. It's with the US Code and laws passed.

Fixing a broken bathroom doesn't require tearing down the house.

And furthermore there is an immense amount of legitimacy provided by having big political fights and there being a winner and a loser.

[DEATHETERNAL]

While I understand the reasons that such a constitutional convention has not been called for the amendments that you name, there is one amendment that I cannot fathom why the states did not force through at some point in our history; an amendment that would clearly state (even more clearly than the tenth) that unless a power has been directly given to the federal government (and the amendment could name further powers not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government currently uses that it should retain in the eyes of the states voting for this), it rests solely and entirely in the hands of the states. Such an amendment is the one thing that I can think of that would be able to draw support from all parties in state legislatures simply because it would increase the power of state legislatures (who are the ones voting to approve the amendment and call for a convention to propose it) regardless of what party that state is or what that state legislature wishes to use that power for.

[Masark]

Really, the Constitution is easy to amend. It's not a hugely complicated process, it just requires a heavy majority. It's more of an "unless there's a DAMN good reason that most everyone agrees with" thing than anything difficult.

And I agree on that; that majority requirement is absolutely a good thing. Fundamental documents like the Constitution shouldn't be jiggered with unless there's a really, really good reason, and a lot of public support.

Canada's constitution is much easier to amend in a general sense, as there's a bunch of ways to do it depending on what the amendment affects. In just 30 years, we've added 10 amendments.

Some amendments can be done by Parliament by itself, like our 2nd (changed the distribution of House of Commons seats) and 10th (created Nunavut) amendments.

Amendments that only affect one province (e.g. 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th amendments) can be done by just Parliament and the province's legislature, which is the section 43 formula.

Amendments affecting the whole country (e.g. 1st amendment follow the section 38 (a.k.a. 7+50) formula, which requires Parliament and a 2/3rds majority (i.e. 7) provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the population (which means you'll need Quebec and/or Ontario on board). Convention on this is to do a referendum in each province, like it was with the unsuccessful Charlottetown Accord.

Amendments affecting the Supreme Court, the Monarch, or the Governor-General require Parliament and all 10 provincial legislatures.

[Laize]

While I understand the reasons that such a constitutional convention has not been called for the amendments that you name, there is one amendment that I cannot fathom why the states did not force through at some point in our history; an amendment that would clearly state (even more clearly than the tenth) that unless a power has been directly given to the federal government (and the amendment could name further powers not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government currently uses that it should retain in the eyes of the states voting for this), it rests solely and entirely in the hands of the states. Such an amendment is the one thing that I can think of that would be able to draw support from all parties in state legislatures simply because it would increase the power of state legislatures (who are the ones voting to approve the amendment and call for a convention to propose it) regardless of what party that state is or what that state legislature wishes to use that power for.

Have you read the 10th Amendment?

It, unfortunately, just gets interpreted differently by the SCOTUS.